Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Murre


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

MV Murre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Well-researched article which sadly lacks independent sources showing notability for this small vessel. I couldn't find good other sources about this online, so without such sources it looks like it fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Her sister ship, MV Auklet, is also nominated for the same reason. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, no damage done by this kind of article, no maintenance problem either. -- Nsda (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. Leaving aside the presentism of assuming that an online presence is the most important indicator on notability, it was trivial to find other online mentions relating to the NOAA/BoF website, as well as a good many mentions on Google books.


 * These boats, much like some of the Canadian fisheries patrol boats, punched far above their weight in influence on boat design, and were, like the Healy, often the only real representation of their federal governments in remote waters and outports. IMS, these boats also directly inspired some of Weston Farmer’s work well inland. Qwirkle (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The NOAA site is not an independent source, it is the government talking about a government ship. The Google books results, could you perhaps indicate which ones you consider significant and independent? Most seem like passing mentions (something like the Pacific Motor Boat, Volume 14 source) and routine announcements, or again not independent, like the "Fisheries Service Bulletin". Which ones of "Pacific Marine Review - Volume 14 - Page 71", and "Pacific Motor Boat - Volume 14 - Page 37" are the "good many mentions" you refer to, and which of those is actually a significant, non routine, independent source? Because after these four I have now mentioned, there is nothing as far as I can see in those results which is even about these boats at all. Oh, and "the presentism of assuming that an online presence is the most important indicator on notability", no, but it's all we can base us on, certainly when the article creator doesn't add any sources (online or not) showing notability initially or after the article was prodded. Simply assuming that old things will be notable somehow is not really helpful.
 * For the rest of your comments, do you have any independent evidence that these boats had such an "influence on boat design" and so on? Just making that claim is not really sufficient. Fram (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is in-depth coverage by the NOAA and WP:GNG makes it explicitly clear that "reports by government agencies" are acceptable sources. Claiming a 2018 NOAA article is not a secondary source to a boat which has no evidence of existing after 1942 is a huge stretch.--Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course government sources are acceptable sources, if they are independent, as the GNG makes perfectly clear in the bullet point after the one you reference. A government agency reporting on the history of that agency (or a very closely related one) is not an independent source. In this case, the sources from NOAA are perfectly acceptable with regards to verifiability, but have zero value for notability. And all the sources in the article are from NOAA... Fram (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How do we make Wikipedia a better source for non-U.S. Navy fleets if we delete ship articles because only the U.S. Government parent agency has written about them or because other information on the ships is hard to find? And why would we apply a different standard than we do for DANFS and U.S. Navy ships? How about continuing research in the years to come instead of deleting articles? Mdnavman (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman
 * Keep: I am the originating author of the article and am working on a project to captrue the maritime history of current and previous U.S. government agencies, including coverage of U.S. federal fleets other than that of the U.S. Navy. These include the NOAA fleet, the fleet of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (an ancestor of NOAA), etc. Right now I am working on the historic fleets that were ancestors of the National Marine Fisheries Service side of NOAA, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, and the U.S. Fish Commission. Pending the outcome of this discussion, I have suspended my project until I find out if my efforts will be wasted by deletions of the some of the articles I am creating in order to capture this otherwise poorly covered maritime history. I note the following:
 * For ships in U.S. federal fleets, mere association with a U.S. federal fleet seems to be enough to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fore example, cargo ships, tankers, patrol boats, etc. with otherwise unremarkable histories are extensively covered in Wikipedia if they served in the U.S. Navy. The maritime history of other U.S. agencies ought to be considered just as important and – unless we want to start wholesale deltions of Navy shipos based on some other notion of notability criteria – should merit similar treatment to the Navy, i.e., their ships get included.
 * The development of a fisheries patrol capability in the Territory of Alaska was important to the Bureau of Fisheries, and this ship and her sister were the first two fisheries patrol ships ever constructed for that service. There is some significance in that alone,both for NOAA and Alaskan history, as well as ship history.
 * I do not understand the idea that a NOAA site reporting on its own history makes it somehow self-serving or suspect. NOAA gains no monetary benefit from posting the information for public use. The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a U.S. Navy source and forms the basis for most U.S. Navy ship articles on Wikipedia, often without other sources in the case of many obscure or older ships that did not benefit from the existence of the Internet in their lifetimes. Is there anything in the AFSC History Corner series of articles that suggests that NOAA is making up the history, or reporting it in a self-serving way? I rather think that NOAA is one of the best sources for its own history, because if it doesn't care about its history, who does? And, as always, I have edited out any signs of hyperbole or romantic description that NOAA may have indulged in (as I do with sources like DANFS for Navy ships).
 * The NOAA site cites sources used for each article. (DANFS does not, but is accepted.) The NOAA site also clearly describes what is known and unknown, attributes its photos, and so on, and even solicits addiitonal research anyone can provide, so it clearly is trying to achieve and maintain the best possible historical information. Why would it not be viewed as meeting a high standard?
 * I continue to research this vessel, but most online information appears to come from this one source. I think we should keep the article and keep researching it. Rather than deletion, a "this article relies too much on a singel source" note would be a better and less destructive approach than deletion, which simply sets Wikipedia back without gaining Wikipedia anything. I understand that Wikipedia is against "do no harm" arguments, but surelyd eletion for notability or single-source is a misapplication of those concepts in this case.
 * Does the nomination for deletion come out of true, universally agreed upom lack of notability, or out of the nominator′s personal lack of interest in the topic? If the latter, keep.
 * US navy ships (or any other nave for that matter) with the same type of problems should be deleted as well, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a good argument. You seem to be making some strawman arguments as well. I never suggested that anything in the article was made up or false (by you, NOAA, anyone). The only concern is that all we have is an organisation writing (in great detail) about their own organisation, and that no one else has bothered to pay significant attention to this. Blaming this on "but it's a pre-internet object" is not really convincing, I often write about things which are much older but get solid attention (in articles, books, ...) in recent years anyway. That's what notability means: that independent sources have paid attention to it, preferably over a long period of time. Fram (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I came across as trying to provide strawman arguments. What I was trying to do is explain my rationale for thinking that articles like these have merit. I have noted over time that fans of article deletion tend to always be able to find something in Wikipedia policy that seems to justify deletion (notability, which usually is a matter of opinion based on reader interest, not something formulaic as deleters present it to be; "do no harm," which deleters use to counter the argument that the article seems to do some good and should remain unless there is some compelling reason to delete it; and now you have added "other stuff exists," which takes away the argument that common practice should be applied across Wikipedia, and that established norms someone might cite in defense of retaining an article are themselves wrong). I find these uses of these policies unconvincing; I thought they were there to delete, say, a high school student writing about himself or herself, or someone writing about the gas station down on the corner where nothing has ever happened except for people buying gas. I remain surprised and disappointed that these policies are being used as a way of justifying the deletion of the coverage otherwise interesting topics that are under-covered on Wikipedia (or even elsewhere on the Internet). My point merely is that NOAA, like DANFS, is an authoritative source; it clearly is providing well-researched, fact-based information about its history with citations; it is not credible that there is not interest in the topic outside of NOAA; as we can see from the smattering of "keep" responses above, there is interest in the topic; and it's not as clear as you make it out to be that a lack of Internet presence can be construed as a lack of notability. In fact, the lack of Internet attention may reflect a lack of attention rather than notability, and any judgment of notability needs to be based on something more intrinsic to the topic that Internet popularity. I suspect that if you launched an initiative for the deletion of a lot of U.S. Navy ships you deem not notable - which I think you are confusing with not being interesting to you - that you would encounter much resistance, because I think you are not taking into account that association of a vessel with a federal fleet is itself a notability factor than you must honor before engaging in deletion of an article. As for NOAA writing about itself and its history, I can't think of a better place to start building an article on a NOAA ship than with information NOAA itself holds on its own history. Who would know better than NOAA? I would agree with this article being classified as a "start" article and receiving a "single source" note at the top of the page, but deletion strikes me as unmerited and a destructive act that makes Wikipedia a lesser place, at least when it comes to the maritime history of the U.S. Government and without benefiting Wikipedia or its users. To me, it's harder to argue that we DON'T want articles like these than that we DO want them. Mdnavman (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)mdnavman
 * You seem to be confusing notability, a concept restricted to Wikipedia in this form, and "noteworthiness". "it is not credible that there is not interest in the topic outside of NOAA": that you and other editors may be interested in this topic has no actual relevance here, as long as no reliable independent sources have shown said interest in it. "you are not taking into account that association of a vessel with a federal fleet is itself a notability factor" Again, you don't seem to be talking about our actual guidelines (WP:NOTINHERITED) but about what you consider noteworthy. "the lack of Internet attention may reflect a lack of attention rather than notability": this is the crux of your mistake here, attention is notability on Wikipedia. Said attention does't have to be online, a good book which hasn't been made available online is equally valid; but a lack of attention is a lack of notability. "As for NOAA writing about itself and its history, I can't think of a better place to start building an article on a NOAA ship than with information NOAA itself holds on its own history. Who would know better than NOAA?" Now you are arguing verifiability, which is not under dispute here: the NOAA source is perfectly acceptable for the contents of the article, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the facts. But this is not what is (or should be) discussed here.
 * I didn't use "other stuff exists" as a reason to delete this one (that would be some weird "we already have enough ship articles, no need to have one more" argument which I wouldn't support), I indicated (through a link which reflects a long-standing rather generally held opinion, not something I just made up) that arguing to keep article X because article Y, Z, and Q exist, is rarely accepted here: X needs to be able to justify its retention on its own. We don't have a "an article needs to be on a notable subject, unless we already have at least 5 articles on similar subjects" exception. Fram (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I see above there is a lot of debate trying to explain why the article should be kept even though it largely relies on a single primary source. It's a nice article, but in the end substantially similar to NOAA's own archive report on the vessel. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons covered by User:Qwirkle. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.